And I hope that continuing that behaviour gets them banned from more countries.

They aren't providing value for "common people", they are trying to capture the market with massive subsidies. That itself is cause for a huge amount of concern.

> They aren't providing value for "common people", they are trying to capture the market with massive subsidies. That itself is cause for a huge amount of concern.

Your overall concern is valid, but I'd disagree with them not providing value. They're significantly cheaper, cleaner and more accessible than regular cabs in many places, but I agree this is likely to change once they have a monopoly.

It seems to me that Uber transfers value from Uber investors, Uber drivers, and regular cabs to Uber employees and, yes indeed, Uber riders - for now, as you say.

It's probably also the case that most "common people" don't actually take cabs and other forms of private cars all that much.

Which "massive subsidies" are they receiving, exactly?

Billions of VC investment money. Actually, I don't agree with the GP. In my view Uber represents one of the biggest transfers of wealth from VCs to the common man in the last three decades. When the funding eventually dries up and Uber are forced to raise their prices, the common man will just move on and leave Uber to go bankrupt. It's beautiful really (at least the LP money coming from pension funds etc. is finding it's way back to the originators in the form of discounted travel rather than going up in smoke).

It's beautiful until they become a monopoly and jack their prices up. I reckon they've got no chance, though. There's no network effect to speak of and competitors can start small and grow, without needing billions. In 15 years from now, the supply of self driving cars will be the limitation and they'll be available in high quality and low price from all the major manufacturers. The actual technology in uber's app is basically nothing, any company could replicate it without too much hassle.

The common man being the users or the drivers?

AFAIK Uber are subsidizing users and drivers, so both? Although I think the users are getting the better end of the deal.

I'm not sure the drivers really have a good understanding of their cost base. I doubt very much that Uber covers the average cost per mile (though hopefully the marginal cost). Would be interesting to see a proper analysis.

He is talking about fare subsidies for passengers paid for by VC money, slimmer wage packets for drivers, and extreme tax avoidance. He isn't talking about subsidies from a government source as I think you are implying. Uber lost over $1 billion in 2016 alone with the express purpose of capturing a global monopoly by driving down prices well into loss making territory. We had uber-like app based companies in London for years before Uber with the likes of Addison Lee, but Uber effectively destroyed them with predatory pricing funded by VCs.

The article details this, ctrl+f for "Understanding the economics"

i.e. they are subsidising rides themselves, temporarily.

None, actually. They are referring to what is normally called "VC funding". But here the GP wants you to believe that Uber is somehow receiving billions in public money and gaining business advantage from that. So they used "subsidies".

>> But here the GP wants you to believe that Uber is somehow receiving billions in public money

Absolutely not, subsidy does not only refer to public money, I'm not sure why you think it would. I'm not under any illusion that public money is being poured into Uber, nor would I wish to give that impression.

How ridiculous.

You did read the analysis of the average NYC Uber fare covering only around 41% of the cost, right?

Uber are burning through billions upon billions of dollars of investment money.

They're losing $2bn a year - that money has to be coming from somewhere (as elsewhere noted, VCs.)

Unpaid tax and VC money.

> subsidies

You keep using that word, I don't think it means what you think it means.

What, using investor money to offer below-cost fares, is not a form of subsidy?

No, it's a form of business. Big companies often drive the price down, so that they can enter a market dominated by entrenched players. They are able to do this by using their profits from somewhere else. In this case, the money was not directly earned by Uber, but the investors funding Uber.

Uber is using investor money to offer rides below cost - i.e. someone else is footing the bill, you are taking a ride subsidised by Uber's investors.

It's just semantics and I'm not sure why you think it's important.

I don't think you could be more wrong.

Quote from the Mayor:

“I want companies that abide by the rules, I want companies that innovate, harbour new technologies, I want disruptive technology coming to London but you’ve got to play by the rule,” he said. Khan stressed the decision over Uber’s licence had been taken by experts at TfL and should not be subject to political interference, when asked whether he would have talks with the company.

Taken from: https://www.theguardian.com/business/2017/sep/25/uber-tfl-co...

Isn't this the same guy who said terrorism is “part and parcel of living in a big city”[1]? Yeah forgive me for trusting Uber more than him. Violent terrorists killing innocents is all fine, attacks have become a monthly affair in London. But oh my! How dare Uber flout our ridiculous anti-people taxi regulations and charge people a reasonable fare?!

Also, quoting the Mayor doesn't prove anything. He has veto power over TFL, he can tell them to do anything. Your argument is just an appeal to authority, in this case an authority with a huge conflict of interest and a proven track record of not giving a fuck about common citizens.

1. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/sadiq-khan-lo...

Are you suggesting that stopping terrorism is as easy as regulating mini-cab licenses, or that we should stop all legislation efforts until all terrorist attacks cease worldwide?

> ridiculous anti-people taxi regulations

Which regulations specifically are you denouncing as "anti-people"?

The one on the basis of which the Uber app has been banned recently.

The app has not been banned. A list of reasons for withdrawing the minicab license from Uber London Limited is included in the article. Which of them specifically do you object to?

Insufficiently carrying out CRB/DBS checks, and selectively reporting only less-serious crimes are anti-people?

Framing Uber as disrupting taxi services for the good of people is incredibly dishonest

You didn't read the article did you?

I mean, I wouldn't say that unreported sexual assaults is "bullshit". That's serious stuff, and they didn't report it to the police.